O'Neill: Shame on the Sheriffs

The Post recently ran a story about the views of Butte County Sheriff Jerry Smith on the subject of gun control. Not surprisingly, considering where he lives and the constituents he panders to, Sheriff Smith chose to speak out against doing anything further to control the number of guns in our communities. Along with other rural sheriffs who've gone on record on the subject, Smith thinks things are fine as they are, and that nothing whatsoever can be done to curb the level of gun violence that makes the United States of America exceptional in the number of gun deaths we tolerate, a number that far exceeds most every other nation on the planet, not counting places like Somalia and other places where there's no government to speak of, and no law enforcement that matters.

The reason it's not surprising that these rural sheriffs all turn up on the same page regarding this issue is directly traceable to the herd mentality that makes it so hard to find independent voices in almost any group of human beings. Sheriff Smith's opinionizing about his opposition to further controls on guns took place after a gathering of northern California sheriffs, and whenever you get a bunch of people together who are in an association of any kind, the tendency of everyone to read from the same text nearly always kicks in. To be out of step with colleagues takes courage, and there is never much of that to be found.

It's a strange thing about courage. Soldiers who are brave enough to face enemy fire are terrified of being out of step with their comrades. Firemen who will race into a burning building to save a child will hesitate to voice an opinion they know isn't shared by their fellow firefighters. Construction workers brave enough to walk on beams at great heights will not speak out against racist talk offered by co-workers during lunch breaks. Pick an archetype of courage and individuality from loggers to cowboys and you'll be hard-pressed to find courageous souls willing to express their individual opinions when doing so will put them at odds with their co-workers. Even in the academic world, where freedom of thought and expression is protected by tenure, it's hard to find those willing to go against the grain.

So it's no surprise that when the top law enforcement guys from the rural counties get together, you're going hear them sharing a lot of talk about how law enforcement doesn't work when it comes to making and enforcing laws that would control the most deadly kinds of guns, or about the impossibility of regulating just who gets to own instruments whose only purpose is killing people. See, these law dogs don't believe in law, I guess, because the criminals are going to get guns no matter what laws we craft. You know, the way speeders are going to exceed speed limits. So why have speed limits in the first place since only the good guys are going to obey those rules? And why call for gun registration since the bad guys won't register their guns? And when you start making rules for people to follow, who knows where those rules will lead? Maybe a police state? Could be. So maybe rule making is just a bad idea from the git.

That seems an odd sort of logic for people charged with enforcing society's rules, but there they all were, 17 rural sheriffs, unified by the idea that law enforcement could never enforce laws against firearms that had been declared illegal.

Here's our own sheriff, weighing in on the subject:"I understand the need to restrict assault weapons, I get that, and high capacity magazines," he said. "My position is, if we start over-regulation, what's next? Once you go down that path, it gets easier to legislate," he said. "What's it going to be tomorrow?"

It's not very useful to have our law enforcement officials spreading talk-radio paranoia to the law-abiding citizenry. Sheriff Michael Downey, the guy charged with protecting people up in Humboldt County, chimed in with his own nonsensical view when he said that gun laws won't inconvenience criminals. "It's the law abiding run-of-the-mill citizens that will be infringed upon, not the criminals," he said.

According to philosophers like Sheriffs Downey and Smith, I guess, as soon as you start making laws, that just leads to more laws. If you make rules against murder, that's a slippery slope toward making rules against simple assault, and the next thing you know, it's against the rules to discipline your wife if she gets outta line. And making it illegal for yahoos to own assault rifles that can mow down his deputies is just a step toward telling the good guys they can't own a deer rifle. Pretty dumb notion, that.

There are 58 counties in California, each with its own sheriff, but only the rural sheriffs are against changes in gun control laws. Coincidence? Nah, it's just guys seeking cover, looking to fit in with their peers. As for leadership, or standing up for safer, more peaceful, and less violent communities, that's another story.

Hell froze over last week when the Paradise Post editorialized on this subject and arrived at a position I actually agreed with. The sheriffs of the north state, including our own, need to be reminded of their proper role.